The feature length directorial debut of successful French actor Guillaume Canet, e le dis à personne is a well done, very contemporary style French mystery/thriller. Sleek, modern, suspenseful, and at times riveting, this film drives along with intrigue and a very meaty, twisting plot. The acting and serpentine plot are the films strengths; François Cluzet gives a commanding performance as protagonist Dr. Alexandre Beck. The Doctor's wife was murdered by a serial killer 8 years prior, and it becomes apparent that the circumstances of her death are not quite as they seem, sending Beck into a gripping hunt to find the truth, which descends into numerous chases, twists, violent encounters, and a web of deception, investigation and intrigue. This is a better effort at similarly themed movies, with the plot remaining unpredictable, gripping, and filled with interesting additions, while the twists don't seem contrived at all, unlike other thrillers of this nature.

While the acting and plot are great, this film is very contemporary in style, stripped down, and not drenched in the high art thickness of older murder mysteries; cinematography is straightforward, and unspectacular, music likewise. It doesn't have visual beauty or seem to have rich, complex subtext, but is a well done, well acted modern thriller, especially given it's the debut of Guillaume Canet.

_________________Razorwyre:promo track track from 'Another Dimension' LP"The best speed metal album of the year"

I began watching this movie today titled "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia". It's moving incredibly slow but I'm watching on the pretense that it will all pay off soon. hAs anyone seen it yet? I think so far the locations and some shots are great and add to the feeling of length and the slow pace, but its just taking it's damn time. Is it worth sticking to?

There are some really haunting and eerie scenes in that movie, like the bog scene, the German soldiers in the fog, and, of course, the fire scene. I also think one of the earlier scenes, when the Germans first attacked the forest, was really cool. Those were some of the most realistic explosions I've ever seen..

Yeah, it's a strangely dream-like film, as if Jean Rollin made a war movie. Left me quite unsettled which is unusual as I have a pretty strong stomach. An amazing performance from the kid too. I read that its rumoured that they hypnotised him during the last scenes where he has lots the plot as they burn the barn.

_________________

Mike_Tyson wrote:

"I think the average person thinks I'm a fucking nut and I deserve whatever happens to me."

I began watching this movie today titled "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia". It's moving incredibly slow but I'm watching on the pretense that it will all pay off soon. hAs anyone seen it yet? I think so far the locations and some shots are great and add to the feeling of length and the slow pace, but its just taking it's damn time. Is it worth sticking to?

Well, the film is pretty much split into two different parts. There's the first one that takes place at night in the countryside. I absolutely loved that even though it is slow and kind of thematical instead of actually concentrating much on the plot. The second part takes place in the city during the day. While it showcases quite well the dreariness and difficulties of small cities in Turkey, as a film, I found it quite boring. Not much of importance takes place there. So is it worth sticking with? I would definitely say yes, if you're at all interested in seeing how things are in rural Turkey. As a film, well, it's up to one's tastes. As I said, I loved the first part, but there's no big payoff if that's what you're expecting. It's all there right now. Gorgeous cinematography of the bare Turkish countryside and thematical exploration of rural Turkey and the difficulties it is facing. And how vastly different it is from the bustle of Istanbul and Ankara. I think a lot of it was made to show the far richer part of Turkey, how the countryside lives and that they're not all there is to Turkey.

An American Werewolf in London: Pretty good movie. It was interesting to see that the actual transformation (the fucking awesome and well done transformation may I add) didn't happen until more than an hour into the movie. A lot better than the ones in the turd of the sequel I saw a few years ago. The acting is better than usual for this type of movie, even if the nurse's actions require some level of suspension of disbelief. It's interesting to note that it was more comedy than horror even if it's frequently listed on best horror movies lists. Most of the killing is suggested or happens offscreen rather than full on.

_________________

theposaga about a Moonblood rehearsal wrote:

So good. Makes me want to break up with my girlfriend, quit my job and never move out of my parents house. Just totally destroy my life for Satan.

^ That's such a neat film. Deserving of its place on "classic horror" or horror comedy lists. Everything about it is neat, not just the amazing special effects. Plus Griffin Dunne (from Scorcese's 'After Hours') is awesome! Best werewolf film, in my opinion. Wolfen is pretty sweet too, though

_________________Razorwyre:promo track track from 'Another Dimension' LP"The best speed metal album of the year"

This is one of the most meaningless and vapid films I have seen lately, and if you know the kinds of films I sometimes watch, then you know there's something to be said there. I just don't get what this movie was going for. It's a "biopic" on Britain's most famous prisoner, Charlie Bronson, but it's told in a way so silly and inane that it would make Adam Sandler blush. Literally all there is to this, is the fact that Bronson (played by Tom Hardy) is crazy. That's it. No deeper psychological study, no drama...nothing else. The movie is broken up into segments separated by Hardy standing on a stage in front of a crowd narrating like it's a big comedy show. At first this was interesting, but after about 15 minutes it becomes clear that this movie is not in the business of doing anything but annoying you with shallow gimmickry. There's no character development, no depth...I had no more of a picture of who Charlie Bronson was when this movie ended then when it began. The film squanders its storytelling potential in wasteful, banal comedic attempts that will never make you laugh, partly because there are actually no jokes, only awkward "lol look at how WEIRD this shit is" moments. Sure, you could glean some kind of point to all of this yourself, but whatever you come up with is way more thought than the director and writers put into the actual finished product - never a good sign. If all you want is stupid shit like a naked Tom Hardy running around with face paint and paper mache cartoon characters, then this is a fine choice for you; but I think there is a deeper story here not being told in favor of some truly hideously bad "comedy," and for that I can't recommend this to anyone. An awful movie that I will rejoice in never having to watch again.

Oh yes, Bronson sucked. One of my film/photography friends recommended it, and i found it to be pure horseshit. As a biopic it's completely unapproved by Bronson himself, and instead insists on fabricating events, largely the stupid overly stylised theatrical presentation style, where the protagonist is presented as some imagined superstar, addressing us, the audience in a tacky, shallow scheme that seems dreamed up by a 16 year old. The film consists of this, and Bronson exacting violence on prison and mental health personnel. There is nothing deeper to it. It relies on its presentation, and central gimmick, and is the kind of film who's "edginess" and quirkiness first year film students would get talking at cafes about, purposefully loudly so as people at adjacent tables could hear them addressing such a "brave" "original" piece of cinema. Hollow, trite schlock. You happened to give it the same rating and general dressing down i did Emp.

_________________Razorwyre:promo track track from 'Another Dimension' LP"The best speed metal album of the year"

Last edited by DeathRiderDoom on Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bronson is brilliant, what the hell are you people talking about? The whole trashy, operatic style of the film captures that insane sense of violently comedic melodrama that Charlie seemed to embody.

Have either of you read any of the books he has written?

Nope, but there was no melodrama or comedy in this movie - just violence...not enough to make a good movie at all. It was mind numbingly stupid. The film skims through large portions of his life very lazily and there's really just nothing in it to make it worth watching.

Well, The Hobbit was... ok. Certainly not great. I would give it a 5 or 6 on a 10 point scale. Seriously. This from a guy who has watched even the behind the scenes DVDs that came with the LOTR deluxe editions several times each. But I have no desire to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey again.

It was just lazy film making on the part of Peter Jackson. The editing is terrible and destroys the pace of the film. Over and over again there are periods of silence that are too long to be dramatic pauses. There are close ups of characters giving meaningful looks that go on for 4, 5 seconds. I just wanted to yell Jesus, fucking CUT already! A couple of times you can't tell where the characters are in their journey, since they seem to be either in mountains or plains pretty much interchangeably. I seriously suspect that some of those scenes were edited out of order. Although it's a fun movie for LOTR fans, whether you know the books or not, it's just not a good movie.

And do not get me started on the story. Jackson & crew have probably gotten the idea over the years that they know Tolkien so well that they can splice in their own ideas and it'll all work out. My god, but it does not. The "original" scenes are embarrassingly awful. The entire intro is dull and pointless, serving no purpose but to give Ian Holm and Elijah Wood cameos. The whole Radagast sequence should be excised from future releases of the film. I don't know why Jackson decided that the company needed to be chased by Azog, at all.

I have read that Boyens, Walsh, and Jackson are continuing their tendency to write & rewrite as they go along, so hopefully they'll scratch out a lot of the fluffy bullshit and produce a tighter cut of the next two movies. Oh, and don't bother with 48fps, or IMAX, or 3D. It has the opposite of the intended effect. It is intensely clear - so clear that items that are supposed to be wood are clearly resin. Items that are intended to be steel are clearly plastic. Locations that are supposed to be in Middle-earth are clearly movie sets. It is an experiment that has failed.

I liked the slow pace of the Hobbit pt 1 and didn't mind their insertions; most of them were things that happened "off-camera" in the book. The Azog thing was OK as it emphasized the personal nature of the blood feud between the dwarves and the orcs, but we'll have to wait until probably the third movie to determine whether or not that plotline is a success in the whole. I'm pretty damn sure Azog will end up leading the orcs in the Battle of Five Armies, and he and Thorin will probably end up fighting each other to the death. Obviously it's not canon but it's not changing things that are particularly important to the overall narrative.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

This is a really well executed, some what unique Dutch thriller. It gives off a really creepy tone, managing to escape the cliched, obvious trappings of most similarly themed serial killer type murder thrillers. The film is about Rex Hofman, a young Dutchman who years after the disappearance of his young girlfriend Saskia while they vacation in France, is still obsessed with finding out what happened to her. He painstakingly pursues every lead, pleading on TV shows, making flyers, and his preoccupation with the case takes a heavy toll on his life and mental health. This is such a great feeling, unique thriller. It reveals the kidnapper straight away, and slowly reveals his motives, personality, and the why and how, rather than teasing us with glimpses of "who done it". The film features one of the most memorable movie villains of my experience, and the film is pieced together and paced excellently, exuding artistic style and creativity. Acting carries the film excellently, especially the tragic Rex and the brilliant villain.

The film was critically acclaimed at the time, and was the subject of a later English remake that failed to capture the same tone and style as the original. It's a film with a tragic aura and originality, and a highly recommended mystery/thriller.

_________________Razorwyre:promo track track from 'Another Dimension' LP"The best speed metal album of the year"

Yeah, Bronson was pure shit. My buddy told me to watch it just to fuck with me. There's absolutely nothing to it except Tom Hardy beating people up.

That's the reason I want to watch it. Also, he has a stache.

Haha, dude, you strike me as a person who actually enjoys things of quality...trust me, don't go into Bronson with any expectations if you do watch it. It's pretty much unwatchable and I probably should've just given it a 0/5 up there.

Ah, I know, I would watch it for the fun of it and because I like Hardy.

I'm watching LOTR right now, halfway through The Two Towers (the Warg battle) and I'm really enjoying this, as good as I remember them to be. I'll watch TROTK tomorrow. Can't wait to see the Hobbit! (DRD, you shut your rockstar mouth!)

Amongst all the other Hobbit stuff in my city in the leadup to the premiere here, they had a big fair setup at one of the waterfront parks with stalls and Hobbit style signage and markets etc. They had a big outdoor screen setup in the park and were screening the LOTR trilogy. Thousands of people were down there watching them in the park. I guess there's a few few nerds here that would have enjoyed that.

_________________Razorwyre:promo track track from 'Another Dimension' LP"The best speed metal album of the year"

I liked the slow pace of the Hobbit pt 1 and didn't mind their insertions; most of them were things that happened "off-camera" in the book. The Azog thing was OK as it emphasized the personal nature of the blood feud between the dwarves and the orcs, but we'll have to wait until probably the third movie to determine whether or not that plotline is a success in the whole. I'm pretty damn sure Azog will end up leading the orcs in the Battle of Five Armies, and he and Thorin will probably end up fighting each other to the death. Obviously it's not canon but it's not changing things that are particularly important to the overall narrative.

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but:

It's not as accessible as I thought it would be, given that The Hobbit is the book that school children read in class (LOTR, generally, was not). It has a slow pace and fantastical elements just seem to come out of nowhere: for me, that's fine because I am well-versed in the books. For people who haven't read them, it feels really weird and strange. That's the feedback I received from people I took with me, who never read the book

The "gross out" elements are played-up, un-necessarily. It didn't add anything to the film, and actually just served as a distraction.

Antichrist: First Lars Von Trier film I see. I'll definitely seek more out (but not Melancholia, that movie looks tremendously boring.) It's a beautifully shot thing that looks amazing and dares to be different. I will say I wasn't really disturbed by the extreme violence and genital mutilation, but I'll admit it was quite much for a relatively mainstream film. It certainly pulls no punches. Yes it's pretentious, there are boring moments, Charlotte Gainsbourg is almost too intense, and by the time it was over I had no idea how to explain a lot what happened cause a lot of it was symbolism and implicit, but all of it felt very deliberate. As a result, it was a very cohesive film. Ultimately it is a great, if profoundly misogynistic movie that suggest woman is inherently evil and deceitful.

_________________

theposaga about a Moonblood rehearsal wrote:

So good. Makes me want to break up with my girlfriend, quit my job and never move out of my parents house. Just totally destroy my life for Satan.

Finally gathered my thoughts on The Hobbit. Basically, fans expecting the serious epic and grandeur scale of the LOTR films will probably be left unsatisfied, as this film is lighter and a lot more charming. It is, however, extremely well done. Given the fact that the information density in the LOTR books was enormous, The Hobbit will have no problem in projecting its story in its given timeframe. On a basis of narrative and character development, this means that The Hobbit could in fact become a superior trilogy of films (and yes I am well aware Jackson and co have implemented stuff from appendixes, Unfinished Tales etc) . Oh and given the fact its shot in 48fps, take any chance possible to see it in that framerate

The Hobbit could have been made in 2 movies, with ease. The book is already way lighter than the LOTR trilogy and I felt Jackson is trying to portray it in a deeper sense it is, thus taking elements from another books to fill the voids of the Hobbit. Still in the opposite sense, I feel the dwarves, especially Thorin are underdeveloped and badly portrayed. It could have been a bit shorter without losing anything.

In what way is Thorin underdeveloped? And even so, how does it differ from the shitload of non-developed characters in the original trilogy? I agree that The Hobbit could've easily been shot in 2 films, but if Jackson hasn't decided to take the story on a (sub)plot railroad from film 2 on out (hopefully not), I don't see how it could possibly be worse than for example 'Fellowship' or 'Return'. These last two films left so many plot gaps that it got kinda sad. And no, I'm not bitching that the original trilogy sucks, but they had to leave so much out of there; The Hobbit is a way smaller book, so the possibility for coherent storytelling and fleshing out characters is greatly increased here.

This is a weird statement. I was really pleased both with Armitage's performance, and Thorin's character plotwise. Of course, he ain't all that grumpy in the books, but they're going for the 'bitter fury' mindset with him, and it works great. Whether it's Azog or Bolg he's head to head, doesn't really matter.

Bronson is brilliant, what the hell are you people talking about? The whole trashy, operatic style of the film captures that insane sense of violently comedic melodrama that Charlie seemed to embody.

Have either of you read any of the books he has written?

Nope, but there was no melodrama or comedy in this movie - just violence...not enough to make a good movie at all. It was mind numbingly stupid. The film skims through large portions of his life very lazily and there's really just nothing in it to make it worth watching.

I thought there was some good black comedy in it. I belly laughed a few times. Did you honestly expect some sort of intellectual, artful, subtle masterpiece from a movie about the life of a prison fighter? He's a prison fighter with a Wagnerian sense of spectacle. That's what Bronson was all about: spectacle. He wanted to be famous. That is all. He has said that in his books, and to me the movie is a pretty nice little statement on how the desire for fame/infamy can possibly trump all other aspirations and lead to literally mindless behavior. Hence, a mindless, fun, graciously violent film. The only thing he was good at was beating the shit out of people. I would thoroughly expect a movie about a graciously violent prison fighter to be...graciously violent, somewhat devoid of any real meaningful insights, and because of Bronson's imagination I would also expect something somewhat...bizarre.

Any attempt to intellectualize the subject matter would have been ridiculous and self-indulgent on the filmmakers part. From what I can see, it looks like the movie was made by someone who had at least a partial grasp of Bronson's mindset. Like Bronson's own mind, the film was hollow, violent, very stylized. It's an artistic bully film. Because that is all Bronson was.

The interludes with him reciting his life story to an audience that is or isn't there is perfect. The amount of time in solitary confinement this man has done is unimaginable to everybody on this board. The movie is somewhat solipsistic, nihilistic, bleak, and gaudy.

In other words, it's absolutely perfect for the subject matter. I would recommend reading some of the books Bronson has written before watching the movie. I can understand not liking the movie, but to rag on it because it "presents the protagonist as some imagined superstar" is silly. Charlie Bronson was a thoroughly imagined superstar, and the movie did a superb job of getting his nuttiness in that regard across. At least to me. And I've read few different places that Bronson was enthralled with Hardy. It's not authorized by him, sure, but he's not allowed to see it. His mother liked it.

I don't know why I'm defending the movie so ardently. I guess it was a breath of fresh air for me, what with all the high-concept stuff that people have been infatuated with lately.

You're using that whole fallacy that people do when trying to defend movies like this, in which, if I don't like the movie, apparently I "was expecting an intellectual and artful masterpiece." No. I expected a story and a coherent plot in which we saw a clear narrative about the life of this guy. We didn't get that; all we got was gimmicky garbage. The on-stage stuff was going for something expressive about his insanity, but mostly just came off as trite and annoying. I'm not even looking for that much depth, but, you know, at least enough to actually convey any of the things you're saying, like this:

Quote:

The interludes with him reciting his life story to an audience that is or isn't there is perfect. The amount of time in solitary confinement this man has done is unimaginable to everybody on this board. The movie is somewhat solipsistic, nihilistic, bleak, and gaudy.

None of this was conveyed properly at all. I saw the first couple minutes and I was like, "OK, so he's reacting to an audience that may be a figment of his imagination...interesting," but then the movie did nothing with it. There was no logical flow between events, no real character...nothing to point out that this was anything more than hack work. All of the things you got from this movie I would say are just your own projections onto it, because there was nothing there in the film itself. There's a line between artistic expressive films and just meaningless empty nonsense. It's a film about a prison fighter, yes. But that doesn't mean it can't tell an actual story, or be more than just irritating crap. Have we "evolved" past that now?

I don't know if there's much more to say on my part, but if you have something else to add I'll definitely read it. Interested to see the exact opposite point of view.

You are correct in saying that a lot of what appeals to me about Bronson are my own projections onto it. But I've always been tickled by movies like that - languorous, empty films that really leave room for the viewer to interpret it on his own terms. Which we all have to do - especially with a movie like this, because none of us know what it is like to do that kind of time. Bronson certainly is a film that leaves a lot of room for the mind to wander. You aren't suffocated by plot or characters. You are given a barren portrait of a madman, and it is up to the viewer to figure out why the fuck he is so crazy.

I personally thought the movie itself was supposed to be more about the state of mind solitary confinement put this guy into, rather than his life story. Coherent plotting and clear narrative, I think, would have been injustice to the madness of Charlie Bronson's life and observations. Violence, bizarre interludes, and a sense of emptiness are exactly what make it work for me.

Different strokes, as always.

On to a movie I know we can all agree about, I watched Chinatown again last night. This film never fails to astound me. Polanski rarely misfired. Has anyone here seen The Ghost Writer? That was a great movie, too. Brosnan should haven gotten an award.

You are correct in saying that a lot of what appeals to me about Bronson are my own projections onto it. But I've always been tickled by movies like that - languorous, empty films that really leave room for the viewer to interpret it on his own terms. Which we all have to do - especially with a movie like this, because none of us know what it is like to do that kind of time. Bronson certainly is a film that leaves a lot of room for the mind to wander. You aren't suffocated by plot or characters. You are given a barren portrait of a madman, and it is up to the viewer to figure out why the fuck he is so crazy.

I personally thought the movie itself was supposed to be more about the state of mind solitary confinement put this guy into, rather than his life story. Coherent plotting and clear narrative, I think, would have been injustice to the madness of Charlie Bronson's life and observations. Violence, bizarre interludes, and a sense of emptiness are exactly what make it work for me.

Different strokes, as always.

On to a movie I know we can all agree about, I watched Chinatown again last night. This film never fails to astound me. Polanski rarely misfired. Has anyone here seen The Ghost Writer? That was a great movie, too. Brosnan should haven gotten an award.

I guess my preconceived notions about getting a serious drama didn't help how I saw the film, but yeah, just pissed me off overall. Ah well.

The Ghost Writer was pretty cool. And of course Chinatown's a masterpiece...gotta love that one.

Yes, it's flawed. Yeah, they do tend to have more screen time for Thorin then Bilbo. But it was very much entertaining and a fun time. It felt like LOTR, but at the same time it felt different from it as well so it's not just another addition to the series.

Clearly a huge Polanski fan here. I saw Ghost Writer a few months back, and didn't go in with high expectations, but found it enjoyable. I liked the tone of the film, and enjoyed MacGregor's performance. I'm not a huge fan of his or anything, but some films he's really enjoyable to watch, others he seems kinda average. I do enjoy political thrillers though, and i felt Ghost Writer was the best one i've seen in a while. The plot was decent enough, and i suppose the twists weren't as contrived as in plenty of modern thrillers. I liked it. 3/5

_________________Razorwyre:promo track track from 'Another Dimension' LP"The best speed metal album of the year"

Glad to hear you enjoyed. I felt the same way: I went in not expecting much, and came out thoroughly impressed. And it gets better with each viewing, I've found. The woman who played Brosnan's wife (her name escapes me) was phenomenal, as well.